Talk:Ken Ham/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

This article presents an approximated age of the Earth immediately after stating the subject's belief. It does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia, and offers nothing about the subject of the article. It seems a but out of place — Preceding unsigned comment added by JAP2018 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I and many other editors agree, but there are several editors who strongly oppose such a modest change, unfortunately. --1990'sguy (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely has its place. Ham says the universe is 6000 years old, while the evidence says it's 13.7 billion years old. That wide contrast is necessary to understanding Ham's particular belief system. clpo13_(talk) 22:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have a formal RfC on the wording, by the way. It has been changed so many times, both within and outside of discussions, that it is impossible to tell what the "consensus" version is. We can't very well say that there is "no consensus to change" when, in fact, it is constantly changing. This was a relatively stable version, but then there was a long discussion last month and it got changed - but it's changed three or four times since then. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Constant barrage of insisting there is a scientific controversy where there isn't one. You would think it is some sort of campaign of ignorance going on. Oh wait, Teach_the_Controversy.. Pesky scientists with their silly facts. Lipsquid (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And how does saying there is scientific consensus (as the relatively stable version StAnselm pointed to does) imply that there is scientific controversy? Isn't that pretty much the opposite of scientific consensus, per our article on the subject? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Going from previous discussions, there appear to be two objections. Firstly, consensus (like Wikipedia consensus) isn't well defined. It could be 100% in favour of something or it could be 51%. In this case, of course, it is ~100%. Because "Scientific consensus" leads people to think "a majority of scientists", this gives an impression that there is a doubt about it. Secondly, appears to be an objection to citing demonstrable facts with "scientific consensus" in the manner of "there is scientific consensus that Pythagoras' Theorem is correct" - that would be silly. Laura Jamieson (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Well, for those who might be confused about what "scientific consensus" means, we have this whole helpful little article on the subject, and actually, by what it says, I don't think 51% would qualify. I would think the percentage would have to be far higher to be considered "general agreement" and represent the "collective judgment" of the community of scientists. I don't see how anyone who bothered to click through could be left with any other impression.

As for the second objection, I would think the fact that the "scientific consensus" version was relatively stable, in comparison to the edit wars and endless discussion and name-calling that resulted from the current version, would argue that the "scientific consensus" version is better for Wikipedia logistically, concerns about what sounds "silly" to some aside. I would further argue that most of the sources I've encountered – left, right, and center – do not simply state the age of the Earth or the universe as fact, but include some kind of qualifier about "the majority of scientists", "mainstream science", or something of that ilk, so maybe it doesn't sound as silly to most folks as it is being represented here.

I agree with StAnselm that no discussion on this or related talk pages seems to have reached a discernible consensus on how to deal with this wording. It's more or less just been one group or the other enforcing their collective will through multiple reversions, and when those reversions actually lead to discussion on the talk page, it quickly disintegrates into the mess Black Kite just collapsed above. (Both sides have been guilty, to one degree or another, and if I reviewed everything that's been written, I'm probably not exempt either, so I'm not trying to engage in finger-pointing, which wouldn't be productive.) I'm warming to the idea of an RfC, but I don't envy the poor admin who has to close the thing. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Ken Ham, and, by extension, his beliefs. In my view it is appropriate to point out that the YEC facet of Biblical literalism stands in contradiction to the preponderance of evidence, or scientific consensus. The relatively stable version linked above does that. In this context, it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia's voice to cast scientific consensus as simple fact. That seems too heavy-handed and polemical, in that it says something like "here is what Ham believes, and he is wrong." That isn't Wikipedia's job. Yes, there is controversy surrounding Biblical literalism, but it is rhetorical, not scientific.

(Obviously it would be silly to call the Pythagorean theorem a matter of scientific consensus, but that is a much simpler assertion, provable within the framework of Euclidean geometry. Evidence for deep time is a bit more extensive than a single geometric theorem, and its exposition calls for a lot of preliminary background study.) Just plain Bill (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It is also silly to believe that the question of if the universe is older than 6,000 years is a matter of scientific consensus. There are the same level of proofs as there are for the Pythagorean theorem. People just want to weasel in the words scientific consensus to imply a controversy. Implying controversy where there is none is stated as there primary goal in discounting science. It is called the Wedge Strategy for those new to this game. Never ending Teach the Controversy.. Sad Lipsquid (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Lipsquid & already discussed above: Talk:Ken_Ham#Scientific_consensus_wording. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no controversy to be taught, and kindly do not frame my comments as favoring that in any way. The evidence for an ancient universe is overwhelming, but it is not congruent (pun intended) with one of the simpler geometric proofs. In this matter, scientific consensus is robust, long-standing, and in my untutored estimation unlikely to change significantly in any of our lifetimes. How is mentioning it weaselly, again? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, that discussion has been collapsed, which I assume means there is no relevant WP consensus arising from it. This has been discussed lots of times, but I can't for the life of me figure out what we've agreed on. StAnselm (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm...

• The New York Times says Ham's views are derided "by most scientists and educators"
• MSNBC says the Creation Museum rejects "modern scientific consensus"
• ABC News says Ham rejects "mainstream science"

How is this any different from Wikipedia saying Ham's views are counter to the scientific consensus? Are they part of the "Teach the Controversy" crowd? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Here I will add some more for you:

• [1] "The universe is 13.73 billion years old, give or take 120 million years, astronomers said last week." Wow, specific number no "scientific consensus"..
• [2] "The latest age estimate — 13 billion to 14 billion years — is consistent with the conclusions reached using other methods." They gave a specific range and didn't say "scientific consensus". What gives?
• [3] "At least 12.5 billion years old, give or take a few billion years, according to new research published in the science journal Nature Wednesday." OMG, yet again they didn't say "scientific consensus".

It must be a conspiracy out of the six articles, only one said "scientific consensus" and they had zero mentions of scientists who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. Some brains are obviously immune to the nonsense pushed by the "Teach the Controversy" crowd. I wish more of them were here. Lipsquid (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's the difference – the articles I cited are discussing Ham, AiG, and related projects. The articles you cited from the same sources are not. What this tells us is that, when discussing YEC-related concepts, mainstream centrist and even left-of-center sources did not consider it improper to mention terms like "scientific consensus", "mainstream science", and "most scientists" rather than simply asserting the scientific consensus as fact. That is the point I am trying to make here. And once again, I feel it necessary to point out WP:CIVIL. Your wishes about the brains of other editors are best kept out of the discussion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing uncivil about it unless you are a brainless Teach the Controversy mimic. All three of the articles you mentioned made it clear that Ham is a crackpot. Lipsquid (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's even simpler than that. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media discussion. All it needs to do is say, very simply, "X believes this, even though their beliefs are incorrect". There is nothing wrong with doing that, it's simple fact. Laura Jamieson (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There's also nothing wrong with saying "X believes this, but most scientists/mainstream scientists/scientific consensus says otherwise", as many reliable sources do. That wording does no harm to the text (apparently, the editorial boards for MSNBC, the NYT, and ABC concur), and if fewer editors find this language objectionable, we get less edit warring and less time having this same discussion over and over again. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Bad wording is objectionable. If you would stop trying to interject controversy where there is none, we could all go do other things. We don't say scientific consensus says water freezes at 32 degrees or the scientific consensus is that the sun is the center of the solar system, we don't say trees according to scientific consensus are plants. We don't need to do anything about the beliefs of a guy who says the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that men walked with dinosaurs, other than laugh at him. Lipsquid (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"Bad wording" is subjective, but apparently, the people who write for a living at the NYT, MSNBC, and others do not consider this "bad wording". I also highly doubt that they have an agenda to inject controversy into this issue. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a simple example. The rapper B.o.B's article contains the following line; "In January 2016, B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat." Does this line need to be "In January 2016, B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat, although scientific consensus is that the earth is near-spherical"? Seriously? Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If B.o.B's article were modeled after Ham's article, it would read something like "In January 2016, B.o.B incited widespread ridicule for claiming that the earth is flat, even though the Earth is clearly spherical." The way this fact is presented in B.o.B.'s article now is just fine. Ham's article should be modeled after B.o.B.'s article and, at least, use the scientific consensus wording (even though I would rather remove the entire section about the accepted Earth and universe ages). --1990'sguy (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If that means we can use sources that ridicule Ham's beliefs instead, like in the B.o.B. article, I am all for it. I think ridicule is much more effective at swaying casual readers that a simple statement of fact as a response to an irrational assertion. We have young kids who read these articles. They expect and deserve to hear what sane people think about crackpots like Mr. Ham. Lipsquid (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The opinions of "sane people" would belong in the "Reception" section of the article. Doing anything to this article to "sway casual readers" would be a clear and blatant violation of WP:NPOV, regardless of the popularity of the article's subject or his beliefs. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, no it wouldn't be a violation of anything. I said sway and I did mean sway. Per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, Pseudoscience topics do not require neutral POV. This article already gives creationism too much leeway as a completely fringe view. Lipsquid (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE states that "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." It is clear that the scientific consensus is that the commonly accepted ages of the Earth and universe are true and that Ham is not. So, per WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, we should include the "scientific consensus" wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, and this same argument has been brought up twice before. Maybe we should fill the article with sources that ridicule Ham's beliefs. Lord knows how easy that will be. I made a funny :) You try to be reasonable and, well on some topics, reason gets you nowhere. Lipsquid (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You can either add "scientific consensus" or keep explaining indefinitely why you won't. (I was thinking about the Parable of the Unjust Judge, where the magistrate doesn't give a hoot about the widow but gives her what she wants so she'll stop bothering him.) But then maybe you get as much enjoyment out of flouting WP:NOTFORUM as I get watching you do it.--John Foxe (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Or not.. I was thinking of the proverb "A quarrelsome editor is like the dripping of a leaky roof" or how about this one "An editor that lacks competency is like a gold ring in a swine's snout" Good, huh? Lipsquid (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. Both those guys, and their cousins and their aunts, are headed your way. Enjoy.--John Foxe (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding repeatedly bothering everyone, see WP:REHASH. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Conditionally agree with this. The only reason I didn't point it out is because I thought maybe John Foxe was referring to the new editors (like the one who started this thread) who frequently pop by to argue this point. Without a consensus to point to, they just start this whole mess again. However, if John Foxe was communicating an intent to keep bringing up this issue himself, that's clearly not a productive way forward. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also thought he was talking about new editors. StAnselm (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I much prefer this version. It reads better and gets rid of the completely awkward brackets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with it, I am just sick of 1990sguy edit warring instead of discussing changes first. Put it back if you like, I won't revert. I agree the brackets are ugly/clunky. Lipsquid (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I made a compromise edit, we have had long discussions with people adamantly against using the words "scientific consensus" in front of scientific facts, which I agree with personally. Trying for good faith compromise....Lipsquid (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, we've had, basically, a continuous discussion about the wording for years already. Is it really necessary to go to the talk page again to propose and edit like this again? And besides, many of the discussions on this talk page end up going off-topic and becoming emotionalistic (from both sides). I was following WP:BRD, which hopefully is a better method of reaching a consensus.

Thanks for you compromise edit, but (as I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear) I disagree with that edit because it is just another way of phrasing the previous wording that I changed. Using the words "scientific consensus" is much better, and many several (if not more) other articles concerning creationism/ID or climate change use the same wording. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd just remind everyone that this article does fall (for obvious reasons) under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions and that persistently edit-warring on this can result in being reported at WP:AE. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The current compromise wording is fine. I strongly oppose "scientific consensus" wording. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the current wording, and is probably the best I've seen. If anyone objects to it, I would suggest starting an RfC so we can put this issue to rest once and for all. StAnselm (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: May I ask you, why do you strongly oppose using the words "scientific consensus"? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Pls see Talk:Ken_Ham#Scientific_consensus_wording -- the threat that started it for me :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a phrase like "the scientific consensus that" to every scientific fact opposed by any anti-science group would unnecessarily bloat articles. "Measurement" is a more precise term than "consensus". There is no reason to pander to the sensibilities of science deniers: we map what the reliable sources say, not a version thereof filtered through an ideology that opposes those sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How would it bloat these articles? Pretty much every reliable news article that I have read about stuff like Ham, AiG, Ark Encounter, etc. actually use very similar wording. Do you really think that the writers of those articles are "science deniers"? --1990'sguy (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia NOT a news article. Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not. But does that mean we cannot follow NPOV for such a controversial figure like the RS's written about Ham, AiG, etc. do? Just a question. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The news doesn't follow WP:GEVAL like we do. When there's a story on Flat Earthers or Geocentrists, they treat it as "them vs scientists, you decide" to "present both sides," because they're more concerned with maintaining viewership than presenting reliably sourced information. Should we not follow reliable sources in describing the age of the earth and universe because of populist pablum written by non-experts? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL just says we should not "unduly legitimize" fringe theories. Presenting them as clearly opposed to scientific consensus does no such thing. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Most YECers think that "scientific consensus" is just the opinion of only some scientists, not a fact that's accepted by most of the world. They'll admit themselves that most scientists "believe in" evolution. Presenting it short of "these are the facts" does legitimize it for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The main difference between the "consensus" wording and the "measurement" wording is that the first leaves the evolution deniers the logical loophole "it's just an opinion", which would be not in accordance with the facts. It's not an opinion, it's a measurement, and the "consensus" wording would water that fact down. A lot of pseudoscience PR is painting the words in the desired color. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So the scientific consensus wording does not unduly legitimize a fringe viewpoint for the general reader, but because it potentially allows those who already hold the viewpoint to create a logical loophole in their own minds, it is a violation of policy? That's the argument I'm seeing here. If a person believes that the Word of God is in conflict with the measured age of the universe or the theory of evolution, I doubt there is anything you can do to de-legitimize that for them, least of all a wording change on Wikipedia. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not see where you get the violation of policy bit. I am saying that the measurement wording is clearer and closer to the facts, and I have yet to see a good reason against it. For me, that is enough to decide in favor of it. Not every suboptimal wording has to violate policies. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thompson asserted that the wording violated WP:GEVAL. This was a response to you both. "Suboptimal wording" is a matter of opinion, and as 1990sguy pointed out above, most of the reliable sources that I've seen discussing Ham, AiG, etc. use some variant of the "scientific consensus" wording. They do not appear to find it suboptimal. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of those sources are talking about Ham's views in general (i.e. creationism) rather than the actual age of the earth. I do not see why we have to continue to pander to one or two editors who wish to force their personal POVs on reality onto everyone else. Either start an RfC or drop this waste of everyone's time. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This NBC article states: "...which means the Earth would be only about 6,000 years as opposed to the roughly 4.5 billion years estimated by scientists." This wording it quite close to the "scientific consensus" wording (i.e. "as opposed to" or "estimated by scientists"). As for the "pov pusher" accusation, if I really were a "pov pusher", the sentence we're debating over would read quite differently. :) Just saying. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You obviously do not know what an estimate is. It is not an opinion. It is an approximation. The approximation article says "The most common versions of philosophy of science accept that empirical measurements are always approximations—they do not perfectly represent what is being measured." So, "estimate" and "approximation" are almost synonyms for measurement, but they are often used when the error bars are subjectively high. As Age of the Earth says: "4.54 ± 0.05 billion years". That error bar is 1%, which is pretty good, so I think it would have been entirely correct for the NBC article to use "measurement" instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Measurement vs. opinion is besides the point. The "scientific consensus" wording can easily be used either way, as there is a consensus among the majority of scientists. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood a word in a source and misused the source as an argument for your wording. I refuted that argument, and now it is suddenly beside the point.

"Either way"? It is a measurement, therefore the "measurement" wording can be used "either way". And it is not "a consensus among the majority of scientists", it is a consensus among all scientists, except those few who will not accept it because of religious dogmatism. Those few are not relevant for science, and the "consensus" wording is far too weak to transport the status the age of the earth measurement has within science. You are trying to put creationist POV into the article, namely that the age of the earth is "just a consensus". Forget it, it's not going to happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"[T]hose few who will not accept it because of religious dogmatism" are still scientists, so my wording is accurate. Also, "scientific consensus" does not put any creationist pov into the article and it makes the article more stable, as has been pointed out numerous times above. But whatever, if POV is keeping the wording out, then it is what it is. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"it makes the article more stable" is a euphemism for "I will not try to change it". "Scientific consensus" does put creationist POV into the article by omitting the fact that it is a measurement - a fact that does not sit well with young-earth creationists. You are trying to remove parts of the article you disagree with. We can't have that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Foggy to me. How does adding "scientific consensus" suggest that it's not a measurement? How would such an omission bother YECs? What parts of the article would be removed by adding the phrase "scientific consensus"?--John Foxe (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

At the moment the article says "scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion years old." The edit under discussion is this [4]. This change would replace "evidence" by "consensus". I could imagine wordings that keep both: "rejecting the scientific consensus that scientific evidence shows", but that would just mean unjustified weakening of the fact-ness of the age of the earth. Any addition of "consensus" would do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That explanation makes sense. (By "it," you meant the "age of the earth." By "remove parts of the article," you meant not "remove" per se but "weakening of the fact-ness of the age of the earth.")--John Foxe (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If a person believes that the Word of God is in conflict with the measured age of the universe or the theory of evolution, then they have a personal religious issue and their confusion should not be reflected in Wikipedia for those of us not confused. It is a measurement, not an opinion. We say "The boiling temperature of water is about 212 degrees." not "The boiling temperature of water is about 212 degrees per scientific consensus." Lipsquid (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, if people are unhappy with the wording, please start an RfC. Otherwise, this is going in circles. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear...

Let's be clear about this. We only need to state facts. No "scientific consensus" or any similar crap. Here's a BBC story about a new method of scanning a dinosaur fossil. It clearly says that the creature lived 200 million years ago. It doesn't say "according to scientific consensus", or "some people say". That's because it's fact. OK, you may say, that's a UK story where people are less likely to be YECs (Hooray for us in the UK). But here's the New York Times saying "Sarmientosaurus, which lived about 95 million years ago..." And here's CNN. Even Fox News! And again and again and ... do I have to continue. There are thousands of mainstream news reports which contradict Ham's ideas that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Do we have to quote every single one, or can we simply point out that he's wrong? Some encyclopedia if we can't. Laura Jamieson (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And why are we even stooping to what newspapers by and for laypeople do instead of what academic sources by professional scholars would do? "Newspapers say 'consensus'" was a laughably bad argument to start with. It's just plain silly now that Laura has shown that it's not standard for newspapers. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant news articles where the subject is Ken Ham, AiG, Creation Museum, Ark Encounter, etc. All the articles list just above have nothing to do with creationism. The ones whose subjects are actually is YEC-related actually mention "scientific consensus" in some way. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, you meant "some articles you've found". Here's some more News site New Site A Christian Website - well worth reading This is worth reading as well, and let's face it, you've presented your POV by describing the racist, homophobic and sexist Tim Laheye as "A great guy who worshipped a great, good, loving, perfect and just God" [5]. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The arguments have been thoroughly discussed and those here will not change their mind. Please end the discussion and let someone put in an RfC for adding "scientific consensus" in front of the measurement of the age of the earth, if they so desire. We can all abide by the RfC and avoid any additional painful discussions that lead to nowhere. Lipsquid (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

None of the four sources you showed prove your point at all. The first three articles that you showed are all opinion pieces, as opposed to the objective news articles that I listed. The first "news site" is Daily Kos, a liberal blog site (its Wikipedia article says that), hardly a real news source. Again, the other two articles are opinions pieces and/or blogs. The third article actually proves my point, as it is just reporting what Ben Carson believes on this issue. The article is clearly in line with the other articles that I've presented. In short, the articles that you are presenting may be interesting, but they prove nothing for you. As for my Tim LaHaye comment, I said that because I was irritated that several other editors made several nasty comments (like you just did now) against him when they were supposed to be merely voting whether his article was worthy of inclusion on the main page. Was my comment out of place? Probably. However, I don't see how it was any worse than many of the other comments on that discussion. Let me also add that you have also revealed your POV by calling him "racist, homophobic and sexist". How exactly is he that? Did you just say that because you don't like him or his beliefs? Thank you for reverting this, but WP:PA states "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream" is, in fact, a personal attack. No hard feelings (also no "creationist tactics" involved, as one editor recently accused me of), just pointing it out. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll actually find that LaHaye's racism, homophobia and sexism is actually sourced in the article, but let's go for an RfC because it's probably better than casting aspersions at each other. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

LaHaye obviously wasn't perfect (I'm not going to pretend at all that he is), but criticizing the NAACP, NOW, or Planned Parenthood does not imply racism or sexism (also, that section is sourced to Rolling Stone, hardly a reliable source - the section for homosexuality has the same problem). Still seems like personal pov to me. As for the RfC, it doesn't matter for me. I don't mind having it or not having it. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Hat this discussion?

This is getting of topic and is no longer about an improvement to the article. I move to hat this discussion. Pls see WP:NOTAFORUM. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016

I believe that this wikipedia page is missing some information, if you would permit me i would add it

BasilSerpent1995 (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016

I believe that this wikipedia page is missing some information, if you would permit me i would add it

BasilSerpent1995 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: Just explain what you would like to be changed as well as a reliable source to confirm the information, and someone will be glad to edit it for you. Topher385 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

If the requested edit complies with the policies and guidelines, that is. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Explanatory note?

It is not clear why there is a 211 word explanatory note in this article, rather than simply a standard citation link. There is no need for a note explaining how the subject came to his estimated age of the Earth, just as there is no need to follow it with a reach for ambiguity via the ungrammatical "even though scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe about 13.8 billion years old."

I suggest replacing this entire sentence/paragraph with "Ham advocates Biblical literalism, claiming that the Book of Genesis is historical fact and the universe is approximately 6,000 years old. This does not accord with scientific evidence, which shows that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe approximately 13.8 billion years old."

Most of the links and references should remain the same, except that [n 1] should be replaced by [1] (i.e. a link to Ham's book, rather than quoting a large chunk of it). Ambiguosity (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your wording is straightforward (good) and has positive features, but there are at least two concerns. First, the current text is a stable version of the article and I think there would need to be a very good reason to re-open the very lengthy prior debates. Second, the proposed wording carries a suggestion that Ham believes what is in the Bible, and Genesis says the Earth is 6,000 years old, so Ham believes that. That interpretation of the wording of course is not correct, and the note serves an important purpose by outlining what the actual belief involves. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Just remember that there is still no consensus on the wording for the second intro paragraph. And btw, nobody ever bothered replying to me in the discussion above, so we can't say that the dispute was resolved. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well first of all YEC is synthetic nonsense because the Bible never gives a date when the Earth was created or that it is specifically 6,000 years old. This is pseudoscientific nonsense from a kook and we treat it as such. I would word it much more negatively in line with WP:PSCI. Lipsquid (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion "Lead" which was not closed, contrary to your edit summary. Also, your comment on YEC is not only unnecessary and doesn't do anything for the discussion, but the first sentence also creates a straw man which YECers don't hold to. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about strawmen. Let me be more clear so you maybe can understand. YEC is nonsense, it will always be fringe nonsense and we treat it as nonsense per WP:PSCI How we treat nonsense on Wikipedia is not going to change. The end. Lipsquid (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that your argument of YEC being "synthetic nonsense" was...well...nonsense. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1990'sguy, I reviewed the discussion above and it seems that there is no consensus for the changes you wanted to make. You should let this go, per WP:CONSENSUS. Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please. Time to hat this discussion as well? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

And that's probably true. And considering that fanatic scientism holds sway in Wikipedia, that's what I'll do (and that's what I've done already for a while). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The parting shot is unwise, but the key thing is that the issue is at rest. No need for further comments. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

There is no reliable scientific evidence that exists for the age of the Earth or the universe unless you consider scientific evidence as something that has been repeated and printed in books by people who claim to be scientists.

50.195.171.25 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. clpo13_(talk) 17:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have evidence of a different age for the earth please take it to the Age of the Earth article where they will I'm sure be very interested. The age of the earth is currently based on VERY reliable evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorites. Theroadislong (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Debate winner

I have removed the recent addition of the Sevastio reference about the Nye-Ham debate, for three reasons: (a) the reason given for Nye winning the debate was completely different to what was in the article, (b) Sevastio is writing a blog on a presumably non-notable website (Guardian Liberty Voice), and (c) what is included here should just be a summary: the main article is Bill Nye–Ken Ham debate. StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this. There was no official judge, so there is no way to say there was a "winner". That said, the evaluations of reliable sources could be included, but would be more appropriate in the main article about the debate. I don't really know how reliable the proffered source is. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 22:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying the creationist argument won then????????? We had better re-write thousands of Wikipedia articles then! Theroadislong (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It was just bullshitty content. This wasn't like a sports event where there was a final score and somebody won and somebody lost. Of course Nye "won" since he represented science but that is not the issue here. Part of why Nye was criticized for doing this, is that it put creationism on some kind of equal footing with science and would lead exactly to this kind of stupid discussion about who "won". Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Except that there aren't thousands of article talking about the Nye-Ham debate - there are only two or three. But your comment appeals to a false dichotomy - not saying that Nye necessarily won is not the same as saying that Nye didn't necessarily win, which in turn is not the same as saying that Ham won. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with StAnselm and Acdixon. There is no way of knowing who "won" the debate. Also, in complete honesty, saying that Nye won the debate "because the scientific community considers virtually all Ham's arguments fringe and pseudo-scientific" just doesn't cut it as being a good reason for winning. The scientific mainstream does not determine the winner. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggesting that the views of the scientific community are determinative of anything undermines the premise of this article: that it's not the scientific community that condemns Ham's ideas but Science itself.--John Foxe (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't care whether it's the "scientific community" or "Science itself" ("Science" is capitalized?); it goes entirely against NPOV to call Nye the winner based on that reasoning. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing seems to be based on a non-standard idea of what it means for someone to "win" a debate. In order to do it seriously, you either need (a) an adjudicator, or (b) a group of people who haven't made up their mind on the issue. StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

nobody seems to be objecting to the removal so we can let this sit. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Dishonest References

Obviously the government of Queensland has never required the teaching of creationism in Queensland's public schools. This a patently false claim.

2001:44B8:31E3:8800:1DBF:7C10:3DDF:77B (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the part that states that Ham strongly disapproved of portraying evolution as fact in the science textbooks? If that is what you are referring to, that has nothing to do with whether or not Queensland ever taught creationism in public schools. Either way, Ham strongly disapproved. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bias in lead

The opening part that I have correctly removed is bias, nit relevant to that part of the article and clearly meant to make Ham look bad it should be removed. Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:PSCI which is policy. Please review the this talk page and its archives. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Not relevant to lead. It should be included in reception section. It's obviously meant to bash Ken Ham. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's purpose isn't to score points.

Please sign your comments. Your response was too quick for you to have reviewed the material. Please actually read WP:PSCI, which is relevant everywhere, and the archives. Please also read WP:LEAD. This is not a place for anyone to express their feelings; see WP:TPG and WP:NOTFORUM. I'll not respond further to arguments that are not based in WP policy and guidelines and the reliable sources on this topic. I doubt anyone else will either. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ive already read all those policies. WP:Lead, WP:PSCI etc doesnt say "discuss whether the subject's views are true or not in the lead so you can score points". Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No sense pursuing this course, Apollo. These folks speak for Science, and their viewpoint is therefore infallible. They also have the votes.--John Foxe (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ham's books

I disagree with Jytdog's edit [6]. There is no reason to remove these books as the distinction between those and the ones still listed is arbitrary. Ham has written many books, true, but how are we to decide which ones to include and which ones not to include? All of them should stay, and doing so would not advertise for Ham any more than it would for anyone else. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A list of books is just a list of books. Maybe Jytdog can give us some rationale for excluding these particular ones.--John Foxe (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

i just checked MOS:WORKS and we should list them all, and do a SPLIT if it gets too unwieldy. I now recall having bumped into this issue before. I don't like that guideline, but that is the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good.--John Foxe (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I do believe that Ham has written many more books than even the current list. I will not attempt to add them all, however. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Degree

User:1990'sguy . about this and this. The issue is not WP:PRIMARY the issue is SPS. Both of kinds of sources, in any case, are irrelevant to issues of WP:WEIGHT. We determine WEIGHT based on independent, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

not so hard, was it. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is about viewpoints. There are not multiple viewpoints at play here. Ham received an honorary degree. This is a fact about which there is no controversy. Honorary degrees are pretty standard fare in biographical articles. I've written a bunch of them, several good or featured. Honorary degrees are essentially an award presented by a notable entity (a college or university). Nor is this an exceptional claim, requiring exceptional sourcing. A primary source should have been fine. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Ham's supposed qualifications:-

Please note that QLD Institute of Technology was not granted university status until 1988. When Ham (allegedly) went there it was NOT qualified to teach to Bachelors' level, not accredited to do so, and did not. It was a technical college. In other words, the most he could possibly have earned from QIT in the early 70s, was a Diploma (the Australian then-equivalent of the US's 2-year Associates Degree -- at most). This is a technical-level qualification, NOT an academic-level qualification. QIT simply did not have a Bachelors of Applied Science in the early '70s, in Environmental Biology or otherwise, and a diploma would only qualify him to be the most junior of lab-technicians ~ testing soil- or water-samples or similar for his superiors. It should also be noted that in Queensland, school-teachers required no accreditation or registration until the late '70s, nor tertiary education beyond this same technical, non-academic, level. His teaching 'diploma' would not have been recognised in any other state of Australia, even at the time, but especially not to teach Science.180.181.93.58 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're completely wrong. StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

wording change from "shows" to "estimates"

The final word isn't in on the exact age of the universe and saying in the opening paragraph that the scientific evidence "shows" which is a definitive wording as opposed to "suggests" or "estimates". Reveals bias. Gfego1 (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No, this is overwhelmingly supported as the scientific consensus. Wikipedia reflects that consensus. To cast doubt on that would be biased in favor of a WP:FRINGE perspective, which is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits concerning popularity

After two attempts at censorship, Zsnell443 decided to make it about popularity.

@Zsnell443: science is not about popularity. Some unscientific mistake is "popular" among each country. Should we state that maybe lazers work by focusing sound waves because 84% of Malaysians and 76% of Russians don't know how lazers work? Should we state that Earth's core might not be very hot because 44% of Chinese people and 43% of Indians don't seem to think so? Should we state that maybe Galileo was wrong and that the sun goes around the Earth because 34% of Europeans are wrong about the observed structure of the solar system?

The source you cite seems to forget that there are other countries besides the United States of America, and doesn't seem to understand that 42% is not a majority.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I think you are taking this edit out of proportion. I know from experience that it is worthless discussing any of it here, so I won't comment further. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it shouldn't be necessary to start a discussion when a user edit wars against the established basis of all modern biology. I mean, we don't have to go through all this when someone edit wars against comparably established medicinal science. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: But you see, there is a difference. There is certainly considerable evidence for creationism, and all I was trying to do was make it more unbiased. I was hoping you would be objective, but apparently, as most Darwinists are, you are close minded and not only an atheist, but anti-theology. Zsnell443 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

h:@Zsnell443: Present professionally-published mainstream academic sources that support your claim that there's evidence for creationism. I'm talking about peer-reviewed mainstream academic journals or books from university presses -- the publishers in either instance noted by non-creationists for their scientific rigor. You're not going to find any. You're going to want to see Non-overlapping magisteria and Theistic evolution for how most scientists who are religious view the relationship between creation and evolution.

I am not an atheist. That you assume I am shows just how ignorant you are of the relationship between science and religion. Like most Christians throughout the world, I believe God created the world using evolution as a tool. I also know that it was not Young Earth Creationism that was crucified for humanity's sake, but I likewise don't regard my or other's cosmological views as defining who is or is not Christian. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I apologise, I was out of line. But, I was just trying to make a simple edit, which had no bias whatsoever. It was just stating that Evolution is not the only answer, and that Ken Ham is not incorrect in his theory. Just as creationism is a theory, as is evolution. Although evolution is the more widely accepted theory, it is still a theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsnell443 (talk • contribs)

Creating artificial balance is a type of bias. Assuming that one's own belief system must be valid and so should be given at least equal treatment with professional consensus on a topic is the definition of bias. Creationism, broadly construed, is the religious belief that God created existence, which may be compatible with science by not overlapping with it. 'Young Earth Creationism is the rejecting of the findings of geology, physics, and biology that the world is more than 6,000 years old. Old Earth Creationism accepts the findings of at least geology and physics, potentially even that of biology. Creationism is not a theory, it is a doctrine. Evolution is a "theory" in the senses that gravity is. The theory describes something describes a facet of nature that has been documented. When you say "still a theory," you demonstrate that you don't fully understand what a Scientific theory is. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why I refused to comment further -- commenting here is essentially like commenting on "RationalWiki." Only come here if you want to be called a "denier" or the like by atheists and theistic evolutionists. There is more name-calling than rational explanations why YEC is not true -- and even those attacks against YEC have been dishonest, distorting YEC views and using five-year-old blogs over YEC scientific papers in their own journals as sources. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Rational explanations you say? To start with, there are these. Please show examples of YEC scientific papers which you think would survive scientific scrutiny. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, Ian.Thomson is merely pointing out that Zsnell443 doesn't understand the scientific concept of what a "theory" is - which they clearly don't. That's not name-calling, it's a simple statement of fact. Similarly, pointing out the inherent fallacy of the YEC concept isn't an attack on religion or anything else, it's merely pointing out that that particular belief is flawed. We don't give equal footing to YEC for the same reason that we don't do it for - mainly non-religious - ideas such as Flat Earth theory, Geocentrism or any other pseudoscience. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Just plain Bill, Answers Research Journal -- all their issues and articles are free to view. You want specific articles? Please read these two recent ones: [7][8] --1990'sguy (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Gee, they had to publish it on their own site instead of submitting it to any of the established journals out there that are religiously neutral. It's almost as if they don't want to find out if their writings would survive scientific scrutiny...

One thing about science is that it is provable to anyone regardless of their religion (if they don't stick their head in the sand, that is). The only individuals advocating YEC are followers of the very closely related Abrahamic religions (and the Jewish and Muslim membership would realistically be described as "token"). No atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, agnostics, or anyone else supports YEC. If the world was observably only 6000 years old, then you'd have Buddhist and Hindu YECers who would claim that YEC proves that our world is an illusion, Shintoists fitting the Japanese creation myth and Taoists fitting Chinese creation myths within that time frame with no difficulty, UFO religions arguing that that's when Ancient astronauts created an old looking earth wholesale 6000 years ago -- but it's mostly Fundamentalist Christians and a few token Jews and Muslims who argue that the world is only 6000 years old. Atheists who accept evolution would be balanced out by YECer deists and even atheists who regard The World as Will and Representation.

The reason that non-Abrahamic religionists reject YEC is not religious bias, it's the same reason that many followers of Abrahamic religions accept evolution... Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis is not even "remotely a reliable source." As Ian.thomson has noted here, its unlikelihood of surviving scientific scrutiny is a salient point. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, if any creationist submits a paper like the ones I linked, they will be automatically rejected because they contradict evolution. Remember the time when many people in the mainstream scientific community demanded that a scientific paper be retracted because it mentioned the word "creator" due to a translation error? This was a translation error for crying out loud -- think of what would happen if someone tried to publish one of the papers I linked? (I'm guessing that neither of you actually read them and lookd at the substance, and you just proceeded to criticize them anyway -- I've seen this a lot)

The fact that few people other than most theologically orthodox Christians (I've actually heard that many Muslims don't believe in evolution, as seen in what Turkey recently decided) believe in YEC does not concern me or other creationists. That Jesus is the only way to heaven (Matthew 7:13; John 14:6; Acts 4:12) and that salvation (justification) is through faith alone and not of works (Romans 11:6; Ephesians 2:8-9) are also things that theologically orthodox Christians believe. YEC delves into science, sure, but there are many scientists and engineers who believe in YEC (of course, not nearly as much that don't, but it still quite a bit). As their interpretation of the evidence is abhorred and marginalized by most others, they separate and form their own publications. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You do realize there's a difference between science and theology, right? That would be kinda basic knowledge required to adequately edit articles in either field. Is "well I believe in Jesus" a valid excuse for Faith healing to the exclusion of modern medicine? How about Geocentrism? Flat Eartherism?

If it's entirely possible for pagans and atheists to believe even just that the world is only 6000 years old without compromising their own belief systems, why is it that none of them do? "Because they don't know Jesus" has as much scientific bearing as rejecting reincarnation "because you don't know Vishnu." In fact, if you were to say that to such a user's face, it'd be an ad hominem attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Claiming victimhood is a poor strategy in reasoned discourse, more so when the topic is not related to sociology. The example of sloppy translation (and, by extension, poor editing) is another distraction, not relevant to the credibility of AIG. I admit that I stopped reading the piece on Homo naledi when I saw the word "holobaramin;" baraminology is pseudoscience. Good luck getting that kind of stuff published in a serious peer-reviewed journal.

In the linked piece on radiometric dating, Andrew Snelling argues for a variation of five orders of magnitude in radioactive decay rate between five or six thousand years ago and the present day. Try selling that idea to a competent geologist; the layers of rock have a different story to tell. For example, flood geology and five million years' worth of magnetostratigraphy do not line up together very well, to put it politely. We may not have been around to observe it directly, but multiple consistent lines of evidence indicate that the world, and the universe it swims in, are older than most people's intuition can grasp.

Just plain Bill (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Is "Were you there" proper?

It would seem that Ham's "Were you there" question is improperly stated in this article. First (though I am deficient on how Wikipedia actually works), the article says, "Arguing that knowledge of evolution and the Big Bang require observation rather than inference...." Can a reference to a statement of his be put here? It wouldn't seem that the section objectively explains his "historical vs observational science" viewpoint. Second, of the two references at the end of that sentence, one links to someone other than Ham, and the other link appears defunct. Ham provides his "historical vs observational science" viewpoint (perhaps rebutting Talk.origins's reply) here: [9]. Is there a way to satisfy WP:TRUTH and using AiG.org's article? 50.110.177.148 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the extract from the article you quote above entirely summarises rather well Hams viewpoint from your link. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the extract would be better worded, "Arguing that knowledge of macroevolution and the Big Bang require observation or historic records rather than inference....", and change the rest to: "The Talk.origins archive responds that "Events in the past leave traces that last into the present."^[cite] Ham rebuts this argument by explaining that creationists have a different way of interpreting the evidence than do other evolutionists.^[10]"

Would that work? 50.110.177.148 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, no, because "rebut" means "to prove false". Nothing that Ham claims can ever "prove false" an argument opposing his own, since his own claims have (and can never have) no proof whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

We could use "counter" instead of "rebut" -- the definition of "counter" according to Google is "speak or act in opposition to", which Ham definitely does here. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

”Rebut” means “argue against,” while “refute” means “disprove.” Just plain Bill (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, "rebut" or "counter" both are good choices. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

"Ham, in turn, argues that creationists interpret scientific evidence differently than do macroevolutionists."--John Foxe (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I like it. 50.110.177.148 (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a macroevolutionist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, there is (for a specific value of "is") macroevolution, but your point still stands. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd hate to speak for Ham, but I think he'd be perfectly happy to accept the microevolution demonstrated by Darwin's finches—evolution that starts with finches and ends with finches.--John Foxe (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"Rebut" has two meanings (refute and counter) and is therefore not a good idea because of ambivalence. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, his response has nothing to do with the original stupid question "were you there". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I added a proper counter argument, but it was too close to copyrighted text. I amended the sentence and made a second try, I am open to other editors making improvements. There are several sources that say this line of questioning is somewhat nonsensical as Mr. Ham "Was not there" at the time of creation. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I've included a link to Answers in Genesis in which Ham frankly agrees that "were you there" questions don't validate creationism. "The simple answer is 'No, we were not there.' And we have never claimed to have been there. This question is based on one that God asked Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.' (Job 38:4)". https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/were-you-there/

Christian fundamentalist

To be clear, I have no problem labeling Ham a Christian fundamentalist on this article, but maybe we should mention that Ham rejects the label, as he made clear in this interview with The Christian Chronicle? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

He says "In the past, it meant that you stood on the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In that sense, yes." That's the sense that our article links to. What he's rejecting would link to Religious fanaticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough -- the same term can have very different meanings. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

First section irrelevant information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I disagree with the use of "Scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old.[2][3]" in the first section. It is irrelevant to Ken Ham's beliefs, and gives away author bias. It is a broad statement with an insufficient source. It would be more appropiate to put "a majority of specialized scientists disagree with Ham's Young-Earth Creationism", or something like that, but in another section.

Jstewart7339 (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Jstewart7339

Correct Wikipedia is biased towards science. The age of the earth is a fact and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent, reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not science. This is what Darwinian Evolutionists have branded as science, and deceived society thereby. ¨Science is ¨the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.¨. In laymen´s terms, true science is observational and repeatable. You were not present in the nascent universe (unless you claim to be God). You do not know for a fact the age of the Earth. As C.H. Spurgeon once wrote, ¨Science is the method by which man tries to conceal his ignorance.¨. Your ¨science¨ is carbon dating, which is completely based upon a uniformitarean system which history has proved inaccurate. Even now we record great fluctuations in the C12 to C14 Ratio in the atmosphere, which is destructive to the foundations of radiocarbon dating. Man has influenced this enormously in the past one-hundred years, with nuclear bombs among other things. It is impossible to get an accurate reading above approximately 60,000 years, and extremely difficult to get an accurate reading above 20,000 years. Many other tests have proved faults in carbon dating. Look at the RATE Group. C14 Dating cannot be taken as absolute. , , , , , etc. (the last one from Ken Ham´s organization. This article would do well to better reveal to the audience Ham´s counterarguaments). The same goes for radiometric dating in general. .

I have listed here quite a few independent, reliable sources. That does not mean that what they say is a fact. That does not mean their antagonists are correct. It means that historical science is discovered through origins science, which is EXTREMELY subjective. Both sides take the same evidence, but interprete it through different philosophical standpoints. Evolutionists through Humanistic Naturalism, (just as much a religion as Christianity), and Creationists through the Bible. The method by which you decide to interprete the evidence is up to you, but it is not fair or accurate to call it ¨science¨, or to deceive others into thinking so.

So, in short, the age of the Universe is not a fact, and this ¨Encyclopedia¨ is biased. Not towards science, but towards the religion of Naturalism. You have unfairly classified sources as ¨unreliable¨ because they contradict Darwinian Evolution. Michael Ruse, eminent Darwinian Athiest and scientific philosopher even states ¨Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity... Evolution is a religion.¨ (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/is-darwinism-a-religion_b_904828.html). The only difference between Evolutionists and Creationists is that the former is hypocritical in denying the role their presumptions play in the outcomes of their studies, and the latters embraces it. So, Throadislong, please be fair. Present both sides equally. Especially considering this is a biography of one of the greatest Creationists of our day. This is not a place to insert naturalist bias. Philosophical presentation should be equal, and in another section or article. Each model should be presented objectively. I plead with you, for the sake of the ideology of the Media, to present the facts fairly and in an unbias manner, by changing this page.

Thank you, Hyrcanus776 (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776

• I dont think I've seen such a bunch of unreliable sources together like that this year so far. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 06:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You have unfairly classified sources as ¨unreliable¨ because they contradict Darwinian Evolution. Did you even read what I wrote, or did you automatically ignore it because I referenced Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis? Hyrcanus776 (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus 776

Nonsense. I read WP:RS which tells me that according to policy, all your sources are crap. Admittedly, the policy doesn't say crap, but nevertheless. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

So org, Edu sites, News sites, etc. mean nothing. Sure, I can your see your claim in regards to ICR and AIG. I referenced them because they are great containers for information. They are great, because they are in opposition to the humanistic, naturalistic bias that most ¨science¨ sites will present you. But look at all the others, too. I didn´t reference ICR and AIG alone. , etc. etc. I´d be glad to reference more, if you´d like. Multiple tests on objects with known dates giving completely inaccurate results.Hyrcanus776 (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776

[edit conflict]Nonsense indeed. The Institute for Creation Research has been evaluated at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which said "As a reliable source for scientific issues, obviously not..." Similarly, Answers in Genesis is "never a reliable source for any scientific topic..." and the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry "appears to fall under WP:SELFPUB, so it is only a reliable source for information about CARM..."

The South China Morning Post article has nothing to do with evolution, creationism, or the age of the Earth. It does manage to spin the well-known fact that carbon dating is unreliable beyond several tens of thousands of years into a screed on climate change "skepticism."

The other sources look just as sketchy, but anyone can take them to the board for evaluation by the Wikipedia community. I have some idea how well that is likely to go, but feel free all the same. Science is not religion; it is science. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We are getting beyond the point of the matter. It is not a fact that the age of the Earth is approximately ¨4.5 billion years¨ and the Universe ¨13.8 billion years¨ old. I need cite no source on that. Sure, Darwinian Evolutionists and other pantheists have speculated about an extraordinarily long age of the Earth to fit in with their theology, and have used an unabsolute dating system as support, but that does not make it fact. You´re welcome to say (for example), the speed of light and the amount of light years away star xyz (who we can see) is from Earth prove it is more than 10,000 years old. This may line up with Evolutionary theology, but it ignores the concept of Time Dilation, as proposed by Albert Einstein (not a Christian, mind you). There are 1000 other supposed ¨proofs¨ for Evolution, which Creationists take as ¨proofs" for Creation, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is not science. We are indirectly studying events in the past, which are unrepeatable, and unobservable. That is often called origins science, which is drastically separate from true empirical science. Origins Science depends heavily on philosophical assumptions and subjective interpretations. As I said before, same evidence, different conclusions.

The conclusion showed in the introduction to Ken Ham is that of the naturalist, which (once again), has no place in the introduction for a unbias biography. One could easily and unbiasly state that Ken Ham´s proposition runs contrary to a majority of specialized scientists. That is true. Scientists tend to have a strong philosophical opinion as well, normally leaning towards Darwinian Evolution. Not in part due to supposedly ¨unbias¨ sources like wikipedia presenting Darwinian Evolution as a fact has society been deceived into believing that it is. Thank goodness for fundamentalism, or we might have the Theistic-Atheistic Evolution controversy instead of the Creation-Evolution Controversy. Anyways, I digress.

Scientific evidence shows the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is about 13.8 billion years old.[2][3] does not belong in the introduction. I don´t even care if you put it in another section, maybe ¨criticism¨, but seriously? I read it now and it looks completely out of place. If I´m reading about Ken Ham, I don´t really what Evolutionists think the age of the Earth is. Oh wait a second, it´s already in another section, where it actually applies! Hyrcanus776 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776

• • I think the take home point you should, um, take home from this discussion, is that if you don't want to read a reality based article about Ken, you should go elsewhere. we will continue to represent the mainstream accepted view, as we are required to do by policy here. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

It is already represented in another section. I just don´t understand why it is necessary in the introduction. Hyrcanus776 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776

• • The lead is a summary of the main and most important points of the rest of the article. That's how all articles here are required to be written. It gives a brief summary of what is to follow, the meat of the article. In this case, what Ken believes is contrasted by reality, and we are required to make that clear. It is one of the most important things about him, i.e. he is clearly wrong. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, I´m going to have to disagree with you on that, but there´s no use in wasting any more of my time arguing. I don´t know how you cannot see how bias you are in this. He is not clearly wrong. What Ken believes is contrasted by what Evolutionists BELIEVE. Hyrcanus776 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Hyrcanus776

Evolution is not a matter of opinion, or something one chooses to believe in or not, like a religious proposition. Evolution is a fact, you are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but the fact remains. This is also NOT a forum. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.

‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’-Michael Ruse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyrcanus776 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

That is the same Michael Ruse who said that evolution as studied by professionals "is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry."

In that same paragraph, he says, "If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time." I offer that as a broad hint... Just plain Bill (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll just recycle some text I recently used on another Talk page and adapt it slightly:

We regularly get pretty much the same contribution in every Talk page to other pseudosciences: "the article is biased", "people with degrees disagree", and so on. It has never worked because that is not how Wikipedia works. We reflect what the reliable sources say.

So, you are attacking your problem from the wrong side. You should, first, do solid research on the subject. Then, when the results confirm your opinion, publish your research in peer-reviewed publications. Then wait until the consensus has shifted and your work is quoted in reliable secondary sources as the last word on the subject. Then, with time, all the Wikipedia articles on your favorite pseudoscience (what was it? oh yes, evolution and the age of the Earth) will change over time and finally reflect your opinion.

This may sound a bit slow to you, but it is the right way to tackle your problem. The shortcut you are using now does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian?

The lead describes Ham as an Australian. He was certainly born in Australia, but has now been living in the USA for over 30 years. Is he still Australian? Given that he has clearly been working in the USA for most of that time, I would assume he would have had to become a US citizen by now. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should describe him as an Australian American? --1990'sguy (talk) 12:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not just "Australian born"? The "Australian American" construction is very much an American thing, and not the way such people would be described by Australians themselves. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I like it; boldly made it so. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe this article to be slanted

The article states that he believes contrary to scientific evidence. When you look at his work however he believes in accordance to scientific evidence and further more shows how the evolutionary way of thinking is scientifically inaccurate. I changed it to make it more accurate and was told that it was reverted and to talk on the talk page first. So that what I'm doing I am indeed new as a Wikipedia editor so I'm still learning some of those ropes however this article needs to be changed maybe not to quite what I'm saying but to at least show both views rather than just slanting away from fact as it appears to have done at the beginning here. plz see link for more information on Ken Ham's views and research. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/age-of-the-universe/evidence-for-a-young-world/ Also plz tell me if im posting this in the right place I think I am posting on the talk page for Ken Ham an that this is where Im supposed to right this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Tree23 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@Truth Tree23: Sorry, you're not going to find consensus for this argument here. The overwhelming evidence of scientific observation indicates that the universe is significantly older than the literal Biblical interpretation of ~6000 years. (Current estimates put it at somewhere on the order of 13.9 billion years.) Any attempts to prove that the entire universe came into being ~6000 years ago have to be relegated to the field of pseudoscience. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh boy, this just got me two spots on my Wikipedia bingo card. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Haminisom

Doesn't ken ham have his own religion called hamminisom? I saw it once in a video about his ark.

Creationism in Queensland schools

The Career section says Queensland schools were legally required to teach both creationism and evolution in 1979. As an Australian, I seriously doubt that. I certainly don't remember it being the case. The claim is cited to a couple of Answers in Genesis sources, not really ideal for this stuff. I have found something from the Uniting Church in Australia, a usually very reliable source. They quote Ham as saying “I was able to teach the students about creation, about the Book of Genesis, about evolution. It wasn’t an issue at all back then from a teaching perspective in the schools...." That's quite different from saying it was required. In fact, it really says it wasn't required, but that he was able to.

I think my source and "fact" are much better than what's there now, and plan to alter that part of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked that sentence. See what you think. John Foxe (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This is the source that was removed:

• Bromley, David G.; Duke, Merin; Bhatt, Simren (27 February 2015). "Answers in Genesis". World Religions and Spirituality Project. Virginia Commonwealth University. Retrieved 6 June 2016.

It's about AiG, but it's not actually an AiG citation. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That URL just redirects to the www.wrdrels.org main page. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

his wife's name is wrong.

her name is mally, not marilyn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becklynn (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• By the looks of things on a quick search, her actual name is Marylin, but Ham has been known to refer to her as "Mally". Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Reception?

I really don't like the wording of the heading of this section. A reception, when used in this context, is defined as "the way in which a person or group of people reacts to someone or something". So what exactly are we reacting to here? To Ken's birth? His rise in popularity? It's unclear, and it just reads very wrong. I would propose something like "awards and criticisms", "public image", "public profile" (this seems to be the preferred wording across the board; see Vladimir Putin#Public image, Barack Obama#Cultural and political image, and Donald Trump#Public profile for examples), "public perception", or something of the like. What do you think about this?^Ol^Ja 21:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think exactly the same as I thought a few days ago when I responded to the same question, asked by, my goodness, yourself. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 23:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In the context of an article on a public figure, "reception" obviously has to do with reliably sourced notable response to his statements, or the views they convey. Reacting to his birth doesn't even pass the giggle test. A head of state such as Putin, Obama, or Trump tends to have a bulkier article where it makes sense to have separate sections on awards, controversies, criticism, and such. "Public image" or "perceptions" miss the mark; the section is about response to his public actions or pronouncements.

Reception sections may be seen in articles on William Lane Craig, on films such as The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel or Schindler's List, or on media spectacles such as Keeping Up with the Kardashians or Dancing with the Stars. Hubbard's book Dianetics has a "reception" section. "Reception" is a clear, understandable way to put it, not "broken English" as James put it in this edit summary. Just plain Bill (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Deliberate Evolutionary Bias in this article

The line "Astrophysical measurements and radiometric dating show that the age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years and the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years." with footnote 2 is superfluous to the heading 'Creationism' under his beliefs. Given that the article is locked and not editable, I have no doubt these have been placed here deliberately by detractors of his viewpoint.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.55.47.109 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That information is referenced to a high quality source, as all content in Wikipedia should be. It's relevant. Who put it there isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Just because a source is of high quality doesn't necessarily mean the information is relevant. No need to feign impartiality about such things. John Foxe (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your logic is correct. That's why I didn't say that. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2019

Add to "Reception" heading:

Ham's inflexible interpretation of Genesis puts him at odds with many conservative Protestants. Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Tim Keller, William Lane Craig, Francis Collins, and many more have been denounced by Ham and his organization at various times.

Sjwilling (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The proposed text violates WP:NPOV ("inflexible"), the source is a blog (not an WP:RS) with a similar URL as the username of the requesting editor (likely WP:COI). There's no reason why this is notable enough to add, and there's no reason why these specific people are listed and not other conservative Protestants. We could also add a list of conservative Protestants who agree with Ham (Johnny Hunt, Albert Mohler, John F. MacArthur, and others), but once again, there's no reason for this and might also violate WP:COATRACK. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, 1990'sguy is correct, as it's a blog, we cannot use it as a source. It is very funny to read though! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Occupation

One of Ham's listed occupations is "Young Earth Creationist." However, "Young Earth Creationist" is a belief, not an occupation. Also, he used to be a science teacher, so should that be included? Primal Groudon (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

One could argue that he still teaches, but he certainly doesn't teach science these days. HiLo48 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Still, past occupations should count. Also, Young Earth Creationist is not an occupation. Primal Groudon (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition to being a science teacher (disregarding HiLo48's comment which didn't add to the discussion), he's the CEO of AiG. The article already (rightly, I think) lists him as a Christian apologist -- that's the substance of what he does. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

In what way did my comment not add to the discussion? I was directly responding to the question "...he used to be a science teacher, so should that be included?" And to FURTHER add to the discussion, I don't think this field is meant to include past occupations. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. IMO, the first comment seemed forum-y and doing little more than to take a swipe at Ham. I think your latest comment was helpful. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

How was I taking a swipe at Ken Ham? All I said is "Why aren't his past occupations included?" and "Young Earth Creationist is not an occupation." Primal Groudon (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Primal Groudon: I wasn't referring to you in the slightest. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Why did you say "the first comment" if you didn't mean me when the first comment under the Occupation section was made by me? Primal Groudon (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I was referring to HiLo48's first comment in this discussion (he had commented twice when I said that, and I only thought the first one went against NOTFORUM). --1990'sguy (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, as an Australian with a Science Degree who still teaches real science, I find it irksome that some of Ham's supporters point to his early Australian qualification as proof that what he now teaches is correct. I apologise if that sentiment did reveal itself just a bit. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Forum-y comments on talk pages is a pet peeve of mine. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)